4. Th 101 Realignment/Lake Dr. Study, Plans & Specs II ,..
CITY OF L.1—
\i 1) CHANHASSEN
1 i ' , ,
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM DW Pc
ITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager 11--c?~
I FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer
—
DATE: December 9 , 1988 t?a,,, . =��.. .o .'t'.i'`0
1 IS- r2 - i _ ;
SUBJ: Trunk Highway 101 Realignment/Lake Drive Feasibility ,Study
Public Hearing; Authorization of Preparation of
Plans and Specifications
IFile No. 88-22
I This public hearing was set by the City Council at its November
14 , 1988 meeting. The City Council accepted the feasibility
study for Trunk Highway 101 Realignment and Lake Drive improve-
1 ments at the November 28, 1988 meeting. The original feasibility
study did not include the preliminary assessment roll , although
the roll was presented at the November 28, 1988 City Council
meeting. The public hearing notices were sent out to all
Iaffected properties including those not proposed for assessments .
The attached Supplemental Report No. 1 has been prepared to,
I among other things , present the preliminary assessment roll and
to address issues and concerns which have been presented to staff
since preparation of the original feasibility study and the pro-
posed phasing of the project.
IAs noted in the attached report, the public information meeting
was held on December 6 , 1988 ( see attached attendance roster) and
I a follow-up meeting was held specifically with representatives of
the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ Thursday morning,
12/8/88 . Much effort has been exerted over this time period to
Ideal with the apparent disparity in assessments which the
Lutheran Church of the Living Christ finds itself in, being a part
of the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. Initial calculations for
assessments for the church property using predominantly the stan-
I dard business park criteria and applying a $50 ,000 credit
resulted in a $120 ,000 assessment for this property. Through
much discussion and careful review as stated in the supplemental
I report, this assessment has been reduced to $40 ,461 .68 . The
logic and rationale is presented in the report for this reduc-
tion. While I would like to say that the church is pleased with
1 such a significant reduction, their spokesmen indicate that an
I
1
' Don Ashworth
December 9 , 1988
Page 2
assessment rate of approximately $16 ,000 was what they thought to
be reasonable. With the limited amount of time available we have
' not been able to pursue this reconciliation any further; however,
we are trying to establish a meeting for Monday with members from
Opus and the Church to discuss further alternatives . In all
' honesty , I believe we have pressed our assessment philosophies as
far as we can for now in reducing these assessments to $40 ,461 .
Any further reductions will most likely need to be a result of a
creative solution and participation on the part of Opus , if
possible .
While this is an important aspect of the project, especially as
' it relates to the 115 members of the church , the City does have
commitments to the Rosemount development for initiation of the
improvements necessary to service the Rosemount site. Likewise
we continue with our need to interface with MnDOT' s design
' schedule for the Trunk Highway 5 improvements. The commitments
that the City has made to Rosemount call for completion of our
Lake Drive improvements by December 15 , 1989 . It is therefore
' imperative that action be taken at this time to authorize, as a
minimum, what is called Phase I of the improvements as designated
in the attached supplemental report. As shown on page 3 of the
report, Phase I is estimated to cost approximately $5 . 2 million
of which $3 million is estimated to be the Lake Drive and south
leg of Trunk Highway 101 improvement costs. These deal specifi-
cally with access to the Rosemount and Church properties .
As proposed, the south leg of Trunk Highway 101 improvements
which would be included in the Phase I documents would include
the construction of a full roadway section to and including the
entrance to the Rosemount property. The attached letter dated
December 9 , 1988 from Rosemount documents their concern and
' interest to see this accomplished.
It is therefore recommended that the attached Supplemental Report
No. 1 for the Trunk Highway 101 Realignment/Lake Drive feasibi-
lity study be accepted. It is further recommended that the firm
of Bennett, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis and Gardner be authorized
to commence with plans and specifications for the design of Phase
' I improvements as identified in the Supplemental Report No. 1 .
Separate construction document packages will be prepared for the
north leg of the Trunk Highway 101 improvements and for the south
leg Trunk Highway 101 and Lake Drive improvements .
1
1
II
I Don Ashworth
December 9 , 1988
Page 3
Il
Attachments
I 1 . November 14 , 1988 City Council meeting minutes .
2 . November 28 , 1988 City Council meeting minutes .
3 . Notices and mailing labels for the public hearing.
I 4 . December 9 , 1988 letter from Rosemount.
5 . December 6 , 1988 public meeting roster .
6 . Church roadway easement agreement.
I7 . Supplemental Report No. 1
cc: Gary Ehret, BRW
Bob Worthington, Opus Corporation
I Ernest Echols , Rosemount, Inc .
Jim Dauwalter, Lutheran Church of the Living Christ w/report
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
192
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
1
REVIEW LAKE DRIVE EAST/TH 101 FEASIBILITY CONCEPTS AND SET DATE FOR PUBLIC
HEARING.
Gary Warren: I currently have a schedule in my staff report to put things in
' order for the Council's understanding and also in order to keep with that
schedule we take this opportunity to bring the concepts forward because we are
talking about some interrelation between TH 101 and Lake Drive at the Market
Blvd. intersection. So with that, Gary Ehret from BRW to present some
' preliminary concepts as they are right and get Council input. We'd be looking
to come back on November 28th meeting with the actual feasibility studies for
review and acceptance at that time. In order for us to meet the schedule that's
laid out and I guess I should point out that our overall schedule here is to get
this project bid this winter so we can come out in the spring.
Acting Mayor Geving: Now what's going to be presented tonight are concepts that
' can be changed? Can be inputted with ideas from the Council? I suspect there
may even be members of the public here that might challenge some of the
concepts. Have you had other meetings Gary with any other individuals in the
tcommunity?
Gary Ehret: The meetings that we've had to date, other than the meetings that
the Council has been fully aware, have been primarily with the immediate
property owners. Specifically on the south side of TH 5 with the Ward family
and their representatives. More their representatives than themselves and with
the Rosemount and Opus people. As was mentioned in the staff report and by
' Gary, the TH 101 and Lake Drive team that has talked to the Council several
times is still intact. We're working towards the completion of the feasibility
for the November 28th Council meeting. What we wanted to do, there were some
things that have come up in the course of discussion with property owners in the
course of design that we want to bring back and give you a brief idea of what
those things are. What changes have occurred so that on November 28th we hope
to have a report that will essentially, you will be familiar with it and
' hopefully comfortable with it. If not, obviously we'll review it at that time.
The Council has been familiar with an issue of relocation TH 101 in the area of
Dakota as it currently exists. We have pretty well reached the conclusion of
' design that we can come down to one apartment building in that area which would
be... We can get the design that will meet all the MnDot criteria and just take
the one development. There will be, as you're aware, a railroad crossing in
that area. We are starting to dialogue with the railroad on that issue.
are familiar with it and have expressed their approval of the concept as it's
currently laid out. That really is a summary of that particular location right
now. Everything you've seen to date really hasn't changed too much. I'll go
' through each utility board real quickly after this board. We've shaded in the
TH 5 improvements for the railroad and for MnDot and exactly what, in there
we're studying each of the exhibit sections to make sure that those
' intersections are designed and accomodated on a future design with MnDot.
Looking at a report that considers the improvement for the construction of Lake
Drive as you see it. The alignment that you see is consistent with what is
' exactly proposed on the plat for Rosemount and I'm not sure if that's been final
approved. We are working with the Rosemount/Opus people. This was in a
previous presentation the Alternate 2A. The realignment for TH 101 with really
not many changes to that. We're looking at a divided section of four lanes, two
IIin each direction throughout the length of it. One change that I want to bring
26
i
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 1 93
Ithe Council's attention to, Fred Hoisington has met several times with the Ward
representatives. Mr. Ward is here tonight so he may wish to speak to this, and
I part of looking at this entire concept, the previous proposal looked at a
continuous Lake Drive, particularly between what would be new Market Blvd.
and TH 101 and Great Plains Blvd.. In meeting with the representatives of the
Ward Family, they expressed a desire to have more contiguous land mass between
' TH 5 and any new Lake Drive. We went back to Jim Benshoof who had done the
traffic analysis in this area, to have him take a look at that concept to make
sure that from a traffic standpoint he did not feel that there would be any
' problems. His conclusion was that this kind of an alignment would work just
fine. In fact, he further went to give us future opportunity to introduce a
nice continuous in a line driveway into the Rosemount facility so there are a
lot of merits to this alternative that allows the Ward family, it represents
' about 30 acres roughly up in here to look for future development.
Councilman Horn: Plus it also cuts off the possibility that somebody's going to
' try to by-pass a traffic jam on TH 5 and cut through the frontage road because
it's not going to be quite as straight forward there anymore.
Gary Ehret: So I think that is the most important thing that we just wanted to
make you aware of is that this is how we are approaching and addressing the
project.
' Acting Mayor Geving: Does it add significantly to the cost of the project?
Gary Ehret: The cost in our mind is, the difference is negligent to even a
' potential savings which you'll see...
Acting Mayor Geving: The reason I ask that is that when we chose 2A, it was
based on some other factors such as cost and now you're showing 2A as being 2AA.
You changed 2.
Gary Ehret: Well, we really haven't changed TH 101 at all. The only thing we
changed was the west section of Lake Drive.
Councilman Johnson: Gary, does that avoid those two wetlands then?
Gary Ehret: Yes. We are south of those two wetlands. Part of what I was going
to say a little earlier, when we start to look at the utility systems that
happen to serve this area, we think there may be a little bit of cost savings
' over this simply because of the nature of the utility system. Sanitary sewer is
...sanitary sewer throughout the area. The main end point or terminal for any
local lateral sewers are the City trunk and into the CC trunk that runs through
' the area so we have actually shorten up some of the runs of sanitary sewer that
will serve any future development. This board represents future service to the
lots that are being created as a part of this Opus plat on the north side of
Lake Drive. The Rosemount facility is proposed to tie in at this point which
' would go down to the trunk sewer. At some point in the future we would look to
construction of sanitary sewer up to serve the northern property. Up in the
north lake area there is very little utility work that has to occur except for
' storm sewer. Sanitary at this point we're just looking to a stub to a future
development of this site here. Otherwise, there's a line that runs through. ..
Watermain, this board represents watermain. Again, up in the north lake area,
there's very little that has to occur. The dash pattern represents all of the
27
194
11 City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
IIexisting watermains. It's pretty well in place. This area as one might g uess
has little or no watermain. The closest location is an 18 inch line that
[-
I out of Well #4 I believe down in the park. We would then look to loop the
watermain on Lake Drive. We believe that ultimately the water system will go
down in a loop to Chan Hills south of Lake Susan. We ran a watermain loop
I across Lake Drive to the east and we're currently looking at tying in by the
Amoco station on Great Plains. The water system from the entire downtown area
once stubbed out to the north side will depend on right-of-way for future
movement. That's really the basics of the water system we have coming in on
I site to tie in. As you might guess, the storm sewer is probably one of the
biggest and difficult issues in the area. The TH 101, TH 5 intersection right
now, there's culverts going every which way and what we're looking at right now,
II the Barr study did look at this area of town and suggested a ponding location on
the Kronick property. Right now the way we're addressing the report would be to
take any storm runoff from the new TH 101 realignment to that pond. That pond
would also serve some other functions... There may be a need to make some
I future modifications for that depending on what MnDot wants to do. On the south
side of the road, again working with Rosemount and Opus, we will be outletting
their local on-site system to the west to a pond that's proposed over on Lake
I Susan Park. With their ultimate park development plan. We'll have a line that
comes up to catch a line that comes out of the Instant Webb. ..running through a
ditch system down into the park and through to Lake Susan. Ultimately you will
I need ponding down in the southern area east of Lake Susan. We reviewed all of
this with the Watershed. We propose that ultimately we will end up creating a
couple of storage retention basins down in this area before discharging into
Riley Creek or Riley Lake Meadows. The one thing I'd like to point out, most of
- L
I this area in here and it appears even in this area, are all within the
jurisdiction, from what we've been able to figure out, the Corps of Engineers so
we've started dialogue with those folks to make them aware of the ultimate plan
II and what is going on here. We feel pretty strongly that when TH 101 develops in
a new location, in this location here, they will look strongly to some type of
mitigation but they will have to do something to cross that creek. That again
is why. ..proposed that ultimately they will have to build some sedimentation or
Iwetland type uses in that area to offset and mitigate what filling we might have
to do. So all of those issues we're looking at and putting in the appropriate
costs and information.
IICouncilman Horn: This Gain of Lakes Study, that's not being done by the Corps
of Engineers is it?
IIGary Ehret: No. I believe Barr is handling that. At lesat I know Bob
Obermeyer who is with Barr and the Watershed...
I Councilman Horn: You say you're reviewing this with them also in terms of
compatibility...
II Gary Ehret: Yes, we've met a couple of times with Bob. So that is very quick.
That's briefly where we're at. We anticipate being back in two weeks to give
you a report in further depth.
IActing Mayor Geving: Okay Gary. Thank you very much. Any councilmembers have
any questions? Anything that you'd like to steer Gary in a different direction?
[77
II
II 28
,City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
Councilman Johnson: Blue Circle is going to not like the realignment there in
II 171 that it's going to cut down the amount of traffic from Lake Drive East and
traffic is what they want. But in general I see it as being a little better
personally for what the City wants.
' Acting Mayor Geving: This is the time to make your comments known because
otherwise you'll see it in a feasibility study two weeks from now.
Councilman Boyt: I have one comment. I think our Council elect really needs to
get involved in this because you're going to be living with the results and the
downtown corner has some problems. Wait until we see what we're going to do
with that apartment building. You may want to make some comments on this at the
' public hearing if not now.
Councilman Horn: What corner are you referring to? The ...corner on TH 101?
' Councilman Boyt: Right. _
' Councilman Horn: At Dakota or up where...
Councilman Boyt: No, north of Dakota there. I just think that intersection
has, you can see it better on the one down here on the floor. It has all sorts
of opportunity for future residential unhappiness.
Councilman Horn: It looks better to me than what's there today. The
unhappiness is today.
Acting Mayor Geving: The important thing is that there's a flow from east to
west there that we don't have now on that corner. If we just want to zero in on
that corner. So as you're going east on 78th Street, you can make a good turn
there and continue on to TH 101 or if you're coming the other direction from the
west, you could make a turn. Now it's a mess. I'm surprised we don't have a
' lot more accidents there than we do.
Gary Ehret: This alignment will significantly improve the intersection but to
get there you're right. It will be a significant change.
Councilman Horn: But what residential area is affected other than the
apartments?
IICouncilman Johnson: That's a fairly substantial bunch of residents.
Gary Ehret: Other than this, the couple of homeowners that border right on West
78th Street.
Acting Mayor Geving: You'll only go back to Erie approximately in the area.
Not even to Erie so there's only two homes there.
Councilman Johnson: In some of the earlier plans it took out 1 or 2 single
I family homes. This plan doesn't. Definitely there's going to be some real
debate coming up on this.
Councilman Boyt: You're taking one of the busiest intersections in the city and
you're going to tear it up and all I'm saying to you is, you better hold onto
I29
r 196
City Council Meeting - November 14; 1988
r
your hat because along about a year and a half from now, there are going to be a
[-
r lot of unhappy people. I think that if we go into it thinking that the people
are going to be happy while that's intersection's being built and shortly after
it's built, I think you're going to, I'm going to be surprised if they are.
rActing Mayor Geving: Are you just speaking of the construction of the, the
phase of construction or the finished product like we're surprised with main
street for example. 78th Street. Are you saying that if it's not built right?
rCouncilman Boyt: Dale, I remember the discussions on main street as you do and
I remember hearing how it was going to improve traffic flow. I'm just saying,
II if I was sitting out there, I'd have something to say about this plan because
you're going to live with the results just like I am.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think what Bill is saying, when you come back with your
Ifeasibility study, you're going to blow that area up so that we can really get
an idea of what it's going to look like when it's built. Is that what you're
saying Bill? That we really want to analyze how the traffic will flow.
ICouncilman Boyt: Not a big point Dale.
Acting Mayor Geving: Well, listen gentlemen. We're not going to sit here all
II night.
Councilman Johnson: Beyond what Gary's going on, on the agenda here public
I hearing notice to the newspaper is on the 23rd which is the day before
Thanksgiving. At that point in time, it may be adviseable to pull back to
Monday the 21st if that's possible. I'm not sure why, we're just hitting
II holiday times and I just see something getting messed up. If it gets messed up
then we just blew another week if it doesn't get out in the paper. The other
thing is mailing individual property owner notices of the hearing on the 1st.
Does that include the residents of the apartment building? I would think so.
r Councilman Horn: I think it goes to the owners because they're
record. We have no idea who lives there. Y re the lots of
IActing Mayor Geving: I don't believe we ever really have a need legally to send
notices to an apartment.
Councilman Johnson: Legally, but I'm not talking legally. I'm talking morally.
If we're going to be doing something to this apartment, I think the people
living in the apartments should be notified somehow or another.
IActing Mayor Geving: Many times we don't even know who those individuals
are.
IICouncilman Boyt: We can put then in the building.
Acting Mayor Geving: We would be happy to do that and we should do that. We
will do that.
rCouncilman Johnson: Just put resident of rtment
� 1.
[71
II Acting Mayor Geving: We will do that Jay but I do agree with what you said that
we should get the public hearing notice out earlier if at all possible. Now I
r 30
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 197
1 don't know if there's another newspaper that goes out unless Mary and the other
newspaper people here tonight can get it into this week's edition which would be
very helpful.
I4 Councilman Johnson: It has to go out on the 1st and then again on the 8th of
December. It has to be noticed the 2 weeks before the meeting. The two issues
' before.
Acting Mayor Geving: I would like to encourage the newspaper people who are
here this evening to give us the widest coverage possible over the next several
' weeks until the public hearing on the 12th. This is really important. We're
going to have a lot of public discussion on this and just like the Council
members have indicated, where we get rapped all the time is that they did not
' hear about this or that they weren't notified. Let's get as much information as
we can. This has a long term bearing on how our community is going to look from
a transportation standpoint. Let's leave that up to Gary. I'm satisfied. Are
there any other questions? Now I'd like to hear from Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward do you
have any comments before we leave this?
John Ward: We endorse that change. ...possibility of improving Lake Drive
tEast...ingress and egress...
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, thank you John. Any other comments from
' councilmembers and then we'll leave this.
Al Klingelhutz: I'm going to put on another hat as a resident of southern
Chanhassen. As a member of Lake Susan Homeowners Association. I guess my
' concern about any development. ..for Lake Susan is very real. I understand at
one time or another development was coming in at the same area. There was even
a skimmer proposed to take the oil, some of the fat and materials off of the
water before it could get into the lake. My real concern is now that the lake
is down considerably and we actually have a pennisula of mud coming into the
lake from the creek coming down from Lake Ann. It probably has built up more in
' the last 5 or 6 years because development has been done to the park and some
other developments up in that area than all the other generations of farming
that was ever put in. I've lived on the lake all my life and I've never seen
that pennisula of mud before. It actually showed up before the lake was down
' and if something isn't done to cure that, the dock the City put in last year
will soon be engulfed with mud. I don't think that's very good for a lake.
I really would appreciate it if you could have much concern about what you're
going to throw into that lake from the new development.
Acting Mayor Geving: And Gary, I'd like to have you address that. Not tonight.
Make sure that you've covered that in the feasibility study and for the public
because I'm sure Al will say the same things on the 12th.
Councilman Horn: In fact, not only address it but identify for us when and the
' source of that delta runoff. I'd like to know some history behind that.
Resolution #88-123: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to set
the public hearing date for December 12, 1988 and that we move along the
schedule provided and we take every reasonable effort to notify the residents of
the apartments of the public hearing and the realignment of TH 101 issue. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
31
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 257
Councilman Johnson: And as the person that gave you probably the most trouble,
I do appreciate the quick response I got from Bob and everybody else. I do
for not getting the EAW until last week. If I'd had it in October, we 1r-Iapologize would have been a lot better off today. It's my fault partially there, for not
getting it earlier.
' ACCEPT LAKE DRIVE EAST/TH 101 FEASIBILITY STUDY (CR 17/TH 101) .
' Gary Warren: We've got a few people, familiar faces here tonight to run through
the highlights. Recognizing the time here, I guess we'll go at your discretion
on how much you want to get into it but we're looking to get Council acceptance
of the document. We've already scheduled the December 12th meeting for the
public hearing. The notices are going out this week, if already so with that
brief introduction, I'd like Don Ringrose to head it off here.
' Don Ringrose: I propose to be relatively brief as Gary said, in part because
there are going to be, first an informal public meeting to which all the
affected property owners will be attending on December 6th. Then secondly, the
' formal public hearing before the Council so there's going to be a lot of
opportunity during those meetings. .. We were hopeful at the December 6th
meeting is beneficial to the property owners because it's a real opportunity to
sit down and go through proces and discuss the thing. But briefly, as you're
' all aware, this project, which is not being sort of condensed into one document
is really the result of two projects which started... First the TH 101
realignment which was in a sense initiated by TH 5 and secondly the Rosemount
I project which you've just spent the last 3 hours reviewing. Each of them has
their own kind of driving force with respect to the schedule but both projects
are relatively... Rosemount wanting to be underway next year. TH 5 will be
fully underway next year...and we have taken some of the preliminary steps that
' are required. The study which has been provided to you is basically a statement
of the conceptual design for all of the facilities and provides preliminary cost
estimates and a preliminary proposal with respect to assessments and other
' funding sources. It's the first step in a sense of this 429 procedure, that is
the feasibility study followed by the public hearing and then presumably the
project can then proceed. The project, and I'll briefly go over this and I know
t Gary was here two weeks ago and you've seen a lot of this. It's essentially the
same document but just for a refresher. The sanitary sewer basically, I will
give a workup of the northeast corner essentially providing service connections
to Ward's existing properties. In the Ward property, it's proposed a trunk and
' lateral sewer system covering the whole area based on alignments of the roadway
which are generally agreed upon with the Ward property owners meeting with Fred
Hoisington. And the Rosemount area, sewer ultimately will be complete all of
' the facility necessary underneath those... The watermain is again, going to be
basically the same essential area. Underneath all. ..under Lake Drive and then
again under the proposed TH 101...the city's water distribution system. Storm
sewer up in the northeast corner is primarily to provide for the drainage that
' will be needed in the reconstruction of the intersection itself in this area.
...will be discharging into the siltation pond to be developed in this area and
the trunk south underneath TH 5, connecting to the existing storm sewer system
and into the area south. Near the Rosemount water area, the storm sewer system
which you've discussed at some length which comes from the ponds, generally west
to the larger pond which Gary discussed. The other system on TH 101, going down
and discharging into the creek but in this case before it discharged into the
49
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
II
creek, a ro sed siltation p po t on pond is to collect the sedimentation and dirt. The
intersection of the area existing TH 101, again the small pond for that purpose.
IFinally, the roadway improvements with respect to TH 101 relocation. It is the
alternative 2A. Realignment at Dakota using upgraded TH 5 and then the Market
Blvd. connection. With respect to Lake Drive, along the originally proposed
I alignment, the jog here where we're suggesting that it we would continue to go
straight through, that jog is a relfection of the desires of the Wards since
they're hoping to develop their property...Jim Benshoof in terms of. ..aspects.
I It is proposed as a part of this project to extend the street lighting system
along the edge of this portion of Lake Drive. That's essentially the project.
The costs, etc. are all summarized in the report. It's not a small undertaking.
II It's some 6 million dollars in total with the land acquisition. Major
acquisition of course you can see here where we do have to take one apartment
building. We realized that we could take one rather than 2 but a significant
amount. We think that the cost estimates and the consumption design are as
II accurate as they can and need be at this point in the process. The point of
this project is still not as well defined as we'd like it to be but because it's
a needed project, it's the whole issue of how much do we assess and how much do
I we get from funding sources. We have suggested in the report an assessment
proposal which is consistent with how you treated the properties in the downtown
area and how you've treated other properties in terms of your assessment policy.
It's not necessarily by any means the way to do it and I suspect as this project
I continues on over the next 2 to 3 weeks, months, there are going to be changes
in that respect coming as a result from discussions with property owners and the
Council and ourselves get out to the citizens who are affected. So don't
I transpond that assessment proposal like that's the way it has to be. There's
room... As we've indicated, if a significant portion of the project is proposed
to be assessed, that portion is unfunded by assessments and we suggested that at
II this point tax increment financing is a current alternative rather than
general... I guess with that I'd entertain questions.
Councilman Boyt: I had some questions when I got to the cost and that we were
I going to assess this. The question that we always get asked during assessments
is, show me how this benefits me $80,000.00 worth of assessment. I assume that
you're comfortable that you can demonstrate that.
IDon Ringrose: Over a demonstration is to.. . Otherwise what we've done here is
suggest you levy the assessment, the proposed assessment consistent with past
policy. The extent that, as I indicated earlier, that policy is offering an
I equitable situations... We have for example, as illustrated and stated in my
report, reflected a $50,000.00 reduction on the assessment that would occur
against the church property. In a...level, we felt that that was probably never
I going to fly. We've got to be realistic and there may be other situations that
we then kind of catch. The intent here in the process of what we've done is not
to try and zero in on the assessment. That's really a question that occurs at
II the time the project is assessed. Once the decision has finally been made but I
appreciate that every property owner who is affected by this.. .assessment, wants
to have the most accurate estimate that they can have about what it's going to
cost them. Again, I suspect in the next 2 or 3 weeks most of...in respect to
I that in response to what is meant. So I won't represent that everything on here
at this point is accurate. I won't say that.
6
II Gary Warren: If I could add too Bill, we are adding or propose to add
facilities, watermain, sanitary sewer, roadway improvements that are obvious
i50
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
t��
II IF improvements to the area by service consistent with a well and established
policy on assessments so those are, they always stand the test that those are
IIpretty straight forward assessments.
Councilman Boyt: Two more quick questions. One of them in regard to, this all
' implies that this all works. They will have access that they need. We have
traffic flow. You have studies and we've had several. The summary is that when
this goes in, it all fits together?
Don Ringrose: Functionally it should work. -
Councilman Boyt: My last point is, do you have a blow-up of sort of the TH 101
78th Street intersection?
Don Ringrose: No I'm sorry, I don't. There is in the packet.
Councilman Boyt: I've got it here but I was just wondering if for the people
who are looking at that. What I would suggest that you consider, and I would be
of the opinion that accepting feasibility study might be a little premature
' since we haven't had the public hearing. I don't know what this locks us into
but I'd sure like to have the flexibility to do something as a result of the
public hearing.
Don Ringrose: This in a sense says we've performed the study.
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that one of the things we begin considering
is, when TH 101 comes down from the north, it hits 78th Street, you've worked to
make that as much of a right angle situation as you can but that works to the
disadvantage of people who want to go into downtown. I would think if you could
make a right turn lane that was more sweeping, it might even create some sort of
little mini-island in there to...
' Mayor Hamilton: Like it is now. _
Councilman Boyt: To some extent.
Don Ringrose: You're suggesting a free right.
Councilman Boyt: I'm suggesting a free right that's not so radical. That's not
' so much of a 90 degree. That it's more like the exit off of a freeway would be.
So people could make that turn into downtown. Maybe even avoiding the stop
light altogether.
' Don Ringrose: We do need to be careful in terms of being too smooth and
appearing too easy. What you then have is, a merging movement and when these
vehicles come together, the person using this lane is not inclined or it's very
' difficult to look back. We need to be sure that we're treating it as an urban
intersection as opposed to say a freeway merging. We've got to be careful with
respect to that but a free right to an urban freeway, put it that way. That you
' normally see at an urban intersection.
Councilman Boyt: I will predict that this won't work. It's just my view and
I might as well get it on record early that when we build this, it's going to be
amazing with in spite of all your engineering efforts, people are going to be
1 51
X60
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
very upset that we've changed this corner. In spite of the mess that it is now r-
and that we're going to hear plenty of times I can't make that turn. Those are
' my comments.
Councilman Johnson: I think it's very important to get this assessment roll out
on the 6th so the people that are being invited to this. Have the letters gone
out at this point?
Gary Warren: They will be going out by December 1st.
Don Ringrose: We do have, by the way, as I indicated before, I do have the mock
or proposed assessment roll.
' Councilman Johnson: One thing, when you say this is not the final. The
assessment doesn't go to the assessment hearing. We get to the assessment
hearing and we say, well you were informed about this way back at the
' feasibility study stage. At the feasibility stage you say address it then and
you're saying when you get to that stage, we already addressed it. It all
doesn't quite add up right now.
' Don Ringrose: We have to have a place to start. We've got to have something to
change if you want to put it that way. We've got something to change now.
' Councilman Johnson: That's been an excuse I've heard before on assessments and
when we get to the final assessment roll, we say hey, we've already gone through
all this. Then let's really go through it at the feasibility study stage and
' get some real agreement.
Don Ringrose: See, if we're going to start making changes, we've got to get
' some input before we can do this.
Councilman Johnson: I think the plan in general would be a vast improvement on
TH 101 going south. The long term prediction to cut it through the old, I guess
it's the old Klingelhutz farm there. I'm not sure who owns it right now but to
cut it through that property and straighten TH 101 completely out on the south
side would be an immense benefit to the City. I'm surprised we don't have more
' accidents along that section of TH 101 than we do. I'm not exactly sure what
the amount of accidents are. I'm not going to be able to be here at the 6th
meeting but hopefully be very forward with the people on what the assessments
' are and make sure.everybody is very well informed on these assessments.
Councilman Geving: I've read through this. It's a very complete package as far
as a feasibility is concerned. I've always had a pet peeve that feasibilty
' studies are always feasible. It never fails. The project is always feasible
and I've never seen one yet but I guess I'm most concerned about again, it's
already been mentioned that the accessibility of all of this. We're assessing
I approximately a third of the project and I want to make sure that when the
people are there on the 6th, that they know fairly closely what's being proposed
even if we say that it's kind of fuzzy and kind of loose at this time and we
II don't know exactly what. We should know pretty well because I know some of
these people and they're budgeting. They're budgeting several years from now
and they want to know pretty precisely what it's going to cost them.
Particularly the church for example and some of the other people.
52
' City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 561
II Jr Don Ringrose: There's only 20 entries and I'm sure some of those are duplicate
owners so we're dealing with a number of property owners that's manageable in
II terms of time...
Councilman Geving: What are we going to do with those 5 properties up on
' Grandview? The Wills and Berniers and those people. How are they going to get
access under this plan? South of the Legion there. Right there. How are they
going to get their access?
' Don Ringrose: I would suggest that the existing driveway which comes down here,
at least initially would simply be extended up to this intersection. To my
understanding in talking to Gary Ehret, that the concept plan for ultimate
development of this which would incorporate access through public streets to
this property.
Councilman Geving: That's a long way down the road. I really don't have a lot
of questions. Like I said, I'm just more or less concerned about the property
owners and the assessment. Also, the removal of the existing TH 101. The
timing on some of these things. When would this removal take place or would we
leave it there until we were completely done with the modified TH 101?
Don Ringrose: My inclination a third time so we could review this without
' having traffic.
Councilman Geving: Would we vacate that street and move it all back?
Don Ringrose: Vacate this.
Councilman Geving: How would we phase this project?
Don Ringrose: The biggest...has to do with the Wards and it proceeds later.
Certainly with respect to Rosemount, this is necessary and it's necessary now
' because it's a major interest...at this intersection but I think our implied
commitment to MnDot with respect to the TH 101/TH5 being done in conjunction
with this, we've still committed that we're going to take care of this so we've
got to get, I think, from here back to old TH 101. Whether we have to extend
' the temporary connection, we can make a temporary connection from here, the
shortest distance as a cost...solution, if that seemed to make more sense in
terms of trying to minimize expenditures.
' Councilman Geving: Could the timing of this meet, what we heard tonight with
Rosemount's timetable, by 1990?
Don Ringrose: Certainly.
Councilman Geving: No problem at all?
' Don Ringrose: We have no problem keeping Rosemount. You make the decisions and
we think we can...
' Councilman Geving: That's sewer, water, streets?
Don Ringrose: This is essentially a one construction season project.
53
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
ICouncilman Boyt:
. ..no problem but TH 5 is still a problem.
[-
II Don Ringrose: TH 5 is a separate issue. The construction and implementation of
all this work would not necessarily go all at once, even if the Wards want it to
happen. I think we'll be looking at this very closely in terms of TH 5. If
1 TH 5 is delayed, this. .. In fact, the original concept was that the City was
responsible for designing this...and construction of this over the highway
contract.
IICouncilman Geving: Excuse me, I had one more other question. There was a
comment made in the feasibility study or somewhere about how you were going to
build over that sedimentation area that you had 30 some feet of peat by the
I existing wetlands. How are you going to build that without digging the peat
out?
II Don Ringrose: Because of the depth of the peat and the...involved there, we put
a geofabric basically on the existing soil or vegetation and place fill over it.
Put an extra 10 feet on there and we'll let it sit for a year. We put something
in to monitor it. The time relationship and the settlement relationship of that
II organic material settles very rapidly...very, very slowly. You monitor that and
at such time as it slows down to a point that's tolerable, you take the excess
dirt off. It doesn't guarantee that you're not going to have some...
IICouncilman Geving: Would you build that into your contract with ho
that road? I can see that breaking up. w you build
- [
II Gary Warren: We did that to Park Road in Chan Lakes Business Park was built
that way. In fact, it didn't settle too terribly fast. It hasn't settled as
much as the soil.. .but we did put a surface on it and we haven't put the final
1 wearcourse on it but it is a common technique.
Don Ringrose: When we get to that depth of peat, digging it out all the way is
IIso expensive that.. .
Councilman Geving: I understand. I just wanted to cover that because I heard
II that term and I hadn't heard it practiced in the future. What was that term?
Don Ringrose: Surcharge.
I Councilman Horn: When we send out the proposed public hearing notices, did we
identify the amount of the proposed assessments on each notice?
II Gary Warren: We haven't sent the specifics out yet. We will be sending a copy
of the roll...
Councilman Horn: And that will go before the public hearing?
I Gary Warren: That will be out this week.
II Councilman Horn: Good. The other comment I'd like to make is the response to
the comment of this not working. I think there's a big difference between
something not working and somebody complaining about a change. I don't think
that, obviously Bill you can make your bet true every time that somebody's not
II going to like it. The real question is, does it work or not. I think the way
I 54
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 263
tyou've got this solves an existing problem of people going at TH 101 speeds and
coming around that sharp corner which has a poor sight distance and has no
II intersection. What you're creating now is a situation where you're going to at
least give the people caning out from those side streets a chance to see a car
coming before they pull out. My other comment relates to your project funding
table and the cost tables. It would make it much simplier for me if you were
' consistent on those numbers. In one case you don't add the adminstrative costs
and in the other case you do add it and cane up with a figure of 6.359 million
and that doesn't include any administrative costs. I don't understand why we're
' inconsistent. We put than in some places or not at all.
Gary Warren: the 6.3 does include that 25%.
Councilman Horn: Well, that's not added into any of these other numbers up
above. If you look at your table 38 and 39, you don't get the results that
you're talking about in Part A. They're all 25% higher. Does 6.3 include the
' 25% or not?
Gary Warren: The 6.3 does include.
Councilman Horn: Then where is that added in? Land acquisition or the
administrative costs of 1.2? So that's all added in on C on table on 32?
' Gary Warren: C is correct. That would be the administrative.
Councilman Horn: I think it would be a little more straight forward if the
Itables matched the line items. That's all I have.
° Mayor Hamilton: I thought this report was very complete and good. Like Dale
says, I've never yet seen a feasibility study that says you can't do it. I
guess just give it enough time and money you can accomplish anything right? I
think we ought to move ahead with the public hearing and with sending out the
notifications to all the affected property owners. Should probably somehow get
something in the paper about the meeting so it's not just affected property
owners but it'd be nice to have as many people here as may have an interest in
it because I think we should explore every assessment process possible including
' a citywide or anything else that we've looked at in the past to try to determine
what is the best way to do this and the most reasonable way to do it.
Gary Warren: We are, or at least my intent is to use the same list, in addition
to the 20 that we have for the 429 process, to use the list that we used as a
part of the alternative selection process. We're getting notices out and we
will be putting notices on the doors of the apartment complex.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay. You probably should send notification to some of the
homeowners association groups that would be not directly affected but certainly
a part of their access might be affected. I think the more comments we get the
better the process is going to turn out overall. I guess that's all I have.
I just hope as many people as possible are aware of this so we can get as much
input from the residents as possible.
Councilman Johnson: Do we have to get this published twice?
11
55
91444_
pity Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: No, the one is on duplication where we can put an ad in the
paper and then the other one is a published public hearing.
' Councilman Boyt: I'd like to suggest that when we have the public hearing, we [-
also maybe, that Fred bring along or we prepare copies of the criteria we used
in making this selection. Maybe you bring copies of the 6 alternatives, the 6
' or 7 alternatives we considered because I think one of the things that we're
going to continue to need to do over the next couple of years is show people how
this ended up being the best choice. Part of this acceptance of change I think
is understanding what we went through to get to this result.
' Resolution #88-129: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to accept
the TH 101/Lake Drive Feasibility Study, File No. 88-22 and that the public
hearing be set for December 12, 1988 and the general forum for the public be
held on December 6, 1988. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to amend the agenda to move
item 11 to this point in the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SUPERAMERICA STATION
LOCATED AT TH 41 AND TH 7, MAYOR HAMILTON.
' Mayor Hamilton: I was not here that night when HSZ, I guess is the name of
their corporation. I have talked to them and they asked that some of the
conditions be reviewed. I said I think it's a good idea and I'm requesting that
those conditions be reviewed again. I would like to have the opportunity to
have some input on it.
Councilman Johnson: For a little discussion sake, during that night we had
' quite a discussion. A lot of compromise. I think we ended up with some good
compromises. SuperAmerica agreed. The residents agreed. We agreed. We
finally got it off at 1:00 in the morning or whatever and got it all compromised
out. We provided a review process for the conditions. We provided conditions
to SuperAmerica under which they should come back if those conditions are
causing them a problem and provide us the evidence that is causing a problem. I
think we did one heck of a good job that night.
Mayor Hamilton: Whether a good job was done or not has nothing to do with it.
I'm asking for the opportunity to make comment and to review the conditions that
were made on it.
Councilman Geving: I will second the reconsideration because I feel that the
' Mayor has to have the opportunity to at least be heard. We did spend a lot of
time that night. We went well into the late hours but I do believe that we have
to give him the consideration of reviewing the whole subject. If he has been
approached by SuperAmerica. We did have several tie votes that night and I know
that the tie votes wouldn't have been ties if the Mayor have been here so on
that basis I will second the reconsideration.
56
CITY OF
C ANBASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
November 23, 1988
Carver County Herald
Attn: Legal Notices
1 123 Second Street West
Chaska, MN 55318
1 Re: Notice of Public Hearing
Trunk Highway 101 Realignment/Lake Drive Feasibility Study
To Whom It May Concern:
'Pt),�
Please publish the attached Notice of iAissessatett.t. Hearing in the
December 1 and December 8 editions of the Carver County Herald.
1 If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to con-
tact me.
1 Sincerely,
vv^-c., I . -
Kim T. Meuwissen
Secretary
KTM:ms
1 Attachment: Notice of Public Hearing
1
1
1
1
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR
TRUNK HIGHWAY 101 REALIGNMENT/LAKE DRIVE
FEASIBILITY STUDY
' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen City Council will
meet in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 690 Coulter
' Drive on Monday, December 12 , 1988 , at 7: 30 p.m. to consider
The Trunk Highway 101/Lake Drive Feasibility Study. This report
deals with the realignment of Trunk Highway 101, the construction
of Lake Drive north of Lake Susan from County Road 17 to Great
Plains Boulevard and the construction of sanitary and storm
sewer, watermain, and streetscape facilities. Said improvements
are proposed to be financed through a combination of tax incre-
ment funds and special assessments to those benefitting proper-
ties as shown in the map included with this notice and the
property I.D. numbers listed below. The total project cost of
said improvements is estimated to be $6 , 359,250 .
' 25-5650080 25-1500060 25-1500070 25-1500080
25-1500090 25-0140500 25-1910020 25-1910030
25-1910010 25-0136200 25-0134500 25-0122300
All interested persons may appear and be heard at said time
' and place.
GARY WARREN, City Engineer
' (Published in the Carver County Herald on these 1st and 8th
days of December, 1988 )
1
I
1
I
f - ' /o. 3
} \ 3 T l 9 I ■
1 Af i ( NZO ��
O
‘-. 4\141 '\04?' . ‘ ,, .kt-. ..
O�
l'--'.. . . . •
______ _, _ _. __ _}. F 1 t i
•
I I
11
:�, n �a 7 t, /I.! °F:�i_pryq ..,::t '--r,. 111 .. �- 'i.,..•:•w,„a:s7....b.r.,„
/ : .1. trijo.-,A-71,4,,,p*.i4 f.,, ,',,A,,,.1, Ilion
�� --.11 ✓-�i tt�I`i``,0,c,,�F .,• ' �.v 1 I
s �?#g ' i yam, /� " `/ ... . x?;«.2 Fil s `4'aqL�_ - ,,7� ; e.^ wR' At DICK : 41.{(Ij 9-`3G. ..`} `1V� . At . 1`• f MOMTERCY ri G -�1 _.,a"" i '[t M?S" /'� °ADD - SES.EfI"� OSIV[II'Z. - \\ P-(.; 11:, :".45..*,174; ,liftt- ''''''''• I .: < ir
,.. „ [-.,-„,..5....,::,, „, ,,-„,„.„, j : //..,.., \ .
„.„-„,,,,,c-t„,,,,,,,,,:.,‘,* .„,„,,,;1,4'6:'" i
1 i I, ••
1W' .
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I Karen J. Engelhardt,I, . g hardt, being first duly sworn, on oath
deposes that she is and was on December 1 , 19 88 ,
the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chan-
hassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed
a copy of the attached notice of Public Information Meeting
and Public Hearing - Trunk Highway 101 Realignment/Lake Drive
Feasibility Study, Improvement Project No. 88-22
to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy
of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and
depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the
' United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the
' names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such
by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota,
' and by other appropriate records. •
mie . Ad 2 'C./ /
' . ren J. Dngelha dt, Deputy Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to
before me this /6I- day
' of 88 2t AAAAAAAA,4.AAAAA Aar
Z�cPmber— 19 s a AAAAAAAAAAaAX
KIM T. MEUWISSEN
-Ai NOTARY PUBLIC• MINNESOTA
CARVER COUNTY
J4 My Commission Expires May 29, 1992 t
Notary Public xnyn►vnn
EXHIBIT "A"
' B.C. Burdick
426 Lake Street
Excelsior, MN 55317
Alscor Invest Jt Venture #2
' 9900 Bren Road East
P.O. Box 150
Minneapolis, MN 55440
Housing and Redev. Authority
' of the City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Lutheran Church of the
Living Christ
' Box 340
Chanhassen, MN 55317
' M. J. Ward
Box 213
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1
' Abbie E. Bongard
100 West 78th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jerome Carlson, et al.
' c%o Instant Web, Inc.
7951 Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Douglas M. Hansen, et al.
17001 Stodola Road
Minnetonka, MN 55343
' Rosemount
Attn: Jeffrey 4. Schmitt
Director of Canpany Services
' 12001 West 78th Street
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
1
r
1
I
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath
deposes that she is and was on December 2 , , 19 88
the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chan-
hassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed
a copy of the attached notice of Public Information Meeting
and Public Hearing - Trunk Highway 101 Realignment/Lake Drive
' Feasibility Study, Improvement Project No. 88-22
to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A" , by enclosing a copy
' of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and
depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the
' United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the
' names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such
by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota,
' and by other appropriate records.
didC-6(t-e-
' Ka n J. ge T4 rdt, Deputy Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to
before me this and day XA AAAA&AAA4AAWAOAAAMAAAAAAA4A4mx
' of -Th■eCemkn-er , 19 8Q, 4:4::::z.;;\ KIM T. MEUWISSEN
NOTARY PUBLIC- MINNESOTA
CARVER COUNTY
lM i �� 4 , *My Commission Expires May 29, 1992 5
' Notary Pub is xmvaroair x
11
II St. Hubert's Church Steven Nelson Willard & Kathryn Pauly
7707 Great Plains Blvd. 7725 Frontier Trail 7721 Frontier Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
I
Kay & D. Moeller William & L. Stodola M. Roeser/J. & P. Atkins
II
II 7727 Frontier Trail 4421 Highland Road 220 West 78th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Hopkins, MN 55343 Chanhassen, MN 55317 •
II 1
Mary Jansen ; Gregory Odash Ole & A. Iverson
7720 Erie Ave. 221 Chan View Box 1
11 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - Chanhassen, MN 55317
II Brian & C. Niestad
Viola Buschkowsky Leona McFarlane
Frances Barnes 206 W. 78th St. 201 Chan View
I 7198 Frontier Tr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
IIJohn Peters Stephen & B. Rademacher Nella Barnes
9555 Lakewood Cir. 2031 Chan View 203 Chan View
Chaska, MN 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
1 a
am
I John Jeurissen Bernice Brokke James & M. Uhrich W
205 Chan View 207 Chan View 7721 Erie Ave. N
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 • mill
r
Peter Held Albert & J. Sinnen Richard & L. Anderson
IIVictoria Smith 8150 Grandview 8210 Grandview - v
8201 Grandview Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 u
Chanhassen, MN 55317
IITimothy Bernier Harvey & R. Will Donald Schmieg
Box 157
8151 Grandview Box 397
IIChanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
IIDean Burdick Wayne Anderson John & James Weis
Box 347 204 Chan View 202 Chan View
IIChanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
II Craig Larson Robert Meuwissen Robert Kahl
II 200 Chan View 201 W. 77th Street 203 W. 77th St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
I
Donald & J. Falls Jerome Kerber Jerome Wendt
205 W. 77th St. 207 W. 77th St. 7701 Erie Ave.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 i, Chanhassen, MN 55317
,
II Patricia A. Berktold Barbara Hamilton Ronald Roeser
226 Chan View 224 Chan View 222 Chan View
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
II
Dennis Wittenberg Bernard & H. Kerber Daniel & J. Burke
1 9880 Crestwood Ter. 221 W. 77th St. 225 N. 77th St.
Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
II
Richard & K. Gavert Jerry & L. Schlenk Larry Schroeder
I 7701 Frontier Trail 225 W. 78th Street 7720 Frontier Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
IIChan Village Apartments Dorn Builders Keith R. and Lisa Kupcho
2222 Park Avenue 835 3rd Ave. 7723 Frontier Trail
IIMinneapolis, MN 55404 Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317
IMartin Schlenk Estate
c/o Jerry Schlenk
225 west 78th Street
IIChanhassen, MN 55317
Landco American Family Ins. Chanhassen Video
IP.O. Box 443 530 West 79th Street 530 West 79th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
IIDonald F. McCarville Safari Tanning Hut aesterm,ann s Art & Frame
3349 Warner Lane 530 West 79th Street 530 West 79th Street
1 Mound, MN 55364 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
IIMichael Sorenson Chanhassen Kitchen & Bath
7606 Erie Avenue 530 West 79th Street
11' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
I B404 Wesig A Aut to 79th rts reet Pa Klingelhutz-Cravens Realtors
St 7311 Great Plains Blvs.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
II
New Revolution Hairstyling MGM Liquor Warehouse
II406 West 79th Street 530 West 79th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
1
Esse Driving School Darrell E. Rodenz, LPA
II7900 Great Plains Blvd. 530 West 79th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
1 ..
CITY OF
1 t..7
,
Ai . CHANHASSEN
. . .
1 , ,,,
\ , _ : , .
�- 4 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
,.
I (612) 937-1900
iDecember 1, 1988
Re: Notice of Public Information Meeting and Public Hearing
I Trunk Highway 101 Realignment/Lake Drive Feasibility Study
File No. 88-22
IDear Property Owner:
Notice is hereby given that the Chanhassen City Council has sche-
duled two meetings for public input on the Trunk Highway 101
I Realignment/Lake Drive Feasibility Study accepted by the City
Council on November 28 , 1988 . The first meeting, an informal
public information meeting, will be held Tuesday, December 6,
I 1988 from 7 :00 p.m. to 9: 00 p.m. The purpose of this meeting is
to allow interested persons the opportunity to discuss specific
aspects of the project with City staff and their consultants.
IThe second meeting will be the public hearing for this project.
It will be held as a part of the regularly scheduled City Council
meeting on Monday, December 12 , 1988 . The City Council meeting
I commences at 7: 30 p.m. Both meetings will be located in the City
Council chambers located at 690 Coulter Drive. All interested
persons may appear and be heard at said times and place.
1 The project deals with the realignment of Trunk Highway 101 , the
construction of Lake Drive north of Lake Susan from County Road
17 to Great Plains Boulevard, and the construction of sanitary
Iand storm sewer, watermain, and streetscape facilities. Said
improvements are proposed to be financed- through a combination of
tax increment funds and special assessments to benefitting pro-
f perties. The total project cost of said improvements is esti-
mated to be $6, 359 ,250 .
I We look forward to discussing this important project with you.
If you have any questions in the meantime , please call .
Sincerely,
ICITY OF CHANHASSEN
I Gar G Warren e.79-sf l'Ajit
P.E.
City Engineer
1
GGW:ktm
1
.;
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF DELIVERY NOTICE
' STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Robert Zydowsky, caused to be delivered a copy of the
attached notice of Public Information Meeting and Public Hearing
for Trunk Highway 101 Realignment/Lake Drive Feasibility Study to
each apartment unit (18 units ) within the Chanhassen Meadows
apartment building located at 7781 Chanhassen Road on December 1 ,
' 1988 .
Robert Zydow ky, • ,
Subscribed and sworn to
' before me this Is day
of- 1�. .c,cs,wag-.v , 1988 .
Notary Public
aAAQAAAAAAA AA-AMAAAMAAAALUAAAAAM
:;;§ a
- . •. KIM T. MEUWISSEN
4 a` li`?' NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA
�� � CARVER COUNTY
' •• My Commission Expires May 29, 1992
?( YI
1
CITYOF
1 .
...,--.
c. ,
. c if... G Awi
1 \i ,. ,
4l '= 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
IDecember 1, 1988
I Re: Notice of Public Information Meeting and Public Hearing
Trunk Highway 101 Realignment/Lake Drive Feasibility Study
File No. 88-22
IDear Tenant:
Notice is hereby given that the Chanhassen City Council has sche-
I duled two meetings for public input on the Trunk Highway 101
Realignment/Lake Drive Feasibility Study accepted by the City
Council on November 28 , 1988 . The first meeting, an informal
I public information meeting, will be held Tuesday, December 6 ,
1988 from 7 : 00 p.m. to 9: 00 p.m. The purpose of this meeting is
to allow interested persons the opportunity to discuss specific
aspects of the project with City staff and their consultants .
IThe second meeting will be the public hearing for this project.
It will be held as a part of the regularly scheduled City Council
I meeting on Monday, December 12 , 1988 . The City Council meeting
commences at 7: 30 p.m. Both meetings will be located in the City
Council chambers located at 690 Coulter Drive. All interested
persons may appear and be heard at said times and place.
IThe project deals with the realignment of Trunk Highway 101 , the
construction of Lake Drive north of Lake Susan from County Road
I 17 to Great Plains Boulevard, and the construction of sanitary
and storm sewer , watermain, and streetscape facilities. Said
improvements are proposed to be financed through a combination of
' tax increment funds and special assessments to benefitting pro-
perties. The total project cost of said improvements is esti-
mated to be $6 , 359 ,250 . .
I We look forward to discussing this important project with you.
If you have any questions in the meantime, please call .
ISincerely,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
I
; 421-ihili()
G, ry G. arren, P.E.
IC . E neer
GGW:ktm
I
I '-'o..: ascs
Itue-.e_.. 1 .
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
0
-a-°�-a- dYL 12.11188
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
6HE!:)
II STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss
111 COUNTY OF CARVER )
1 I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being g first duly sworn, on oath
Ideposes that she is and was on dve/r11 8 , l98.5:3 ,
the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chan-
, hassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed
a copy of the attached notice of TL/,.Q)c, qb a._ (r if-L.
I TH 101 ��
1
to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy
Iof said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and
depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the
United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the
Inames and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such
by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota,
Iand by other appropriate records.
AlA . 1 A A __ aiie
Ia 'en J. •elha': t, Deputy Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to
before me this „;:,184h day
I of `17,6ymbe c.. , 19E6
X AAaaAAAAcua4AWAgaF..A\Aa,aAAAAAAAQA4a k
a ;,�a •. KIM T MEUWISSEN
4,,A. NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
4J• _ ! • _ _ 1 Witt CARVER COUNTY
IN otary public
1 '�4N, My Commission Expires May 29, 1992 E
r
1
t
EXHIBIT "A"
B.C. Burdick
426 Lake Street
1 Excelsior, MN 55317
Alscor Invest Jt Venture #2
9900 Bren Road Fast
P.O. Box 150
1 i Minneapolis, MN 55440
Housing and Redev. Authority
' of the City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Lutheran Church of the
Living Christ
Box 340
Chanhassen, MN 55317
M. J. Ward
Box 213
' - Chanhassen, MN 55317
1 •
Abbie E. Bongard
100 West 78th Street
IIChanhassen, MN 55317
1r - Jerome Carlson, et al.
- c%o Instant Web, Inc.
7951 Powers Boulevard
I 1Lj: Chanhassen, MN 55317
•
z.
1
1
I ... ,
' CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR
TRUNK HIGHWAY 101 REALIGNMENT/LAKE DRIVE
FEASIBILITY STUDY
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen City Council will
meet in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 690 Coulter
' Drive on Monday, December 12 , 1988 , at 7: 30 p.m. to consider
The Trunk Highway 101/Lake Drive Feasibility Study. This report
deals with the realignment of Trunk Highway 101, the construction
of Lake Drive north of Lake Susan from County Road 17 to Great
Plains Boulevard and the construction of sanitary and storm
sewer, watermain, and streetscape facilities. Said improvements
are proposed to be financed through a combination of tax incre-
' ment funds and special assessments to those benefitting proper-
ties as shown in the map included with this notice and the
property I.D. numbers listed below. The total project cost of
' said improvements is estimated to be $6 , 359 , 250 .
25-5650080 25-1500060 25-1500070 25-1500080
25-1500090 25-0140500 25-1910020 25-1910030
' 25-1910010 25-0136200 25-0134500 25-0122300
All interested persons may appear and be heard at said time
' and place.
•
GARY WARREN, City Engineer
(Published in the Carver County Herald on these 1st and 8th
days of December, 1988 )
1 ;
•
l 4'men t
- , I . .. , ign ., , -i r. . ..,„:„.20.,‘,..„...,..., „,
g: - i.„2.___I____.C24' ,r,„ ,,,,,,.., . ,.,,. ,,_..a !
.•=1 I' r 1• ,,.,,..„..„...
1. imi 1 1 i
j , •,.....“.04,..,......If. .. ,, II II---.--e- is s s •I s si s I. IC • • .1.1,:WEST al II CnxY viEw RIM JY , CR.Y—• V�[. 9 1-1
• 7eTh SCHNEI E •Ja 0 8 m•_14a6a ����° .._ v S- ,I! �I• I .wl[�'C]
.{�, COUI iER on — Yo ,•.,=2[,L4 , —To PER.-1
.— '- _ ,..---/`„[•--_+rwr----Ise--mss •--- --`' �... EN�4 ���I prim 7,'- SS• I I .'----i-r—,�0� d_•'.
/ _, a;.sYe ,i z ;'^�'{•' -- 7JThn
a:.f. L
0\°I.\ 1 • '0 f'..",,,`,;,;,'";,,, id all 1 ......,.. ■ ., .
POI \ 474, 0.a. .+101111 DRIVE. ...... •tH- • O ,.hot.z.. .,et.* . . *OW
/- t �.c''`sr'.t `i' DA CO. [� .5. 4 ::.,......1- 'V t
`� �� AJF _ :,j \` " �... °� •gDD LINE RA t ,,j,��e'I ... . , ..__,
1
;!f.t,Y•t t;! :,t*`t'4ra•� f �� HD IER O`CIS � a•Z{y� I; '"=d P�i`�n 1 �f �����EVEMENT O D !
//z�,: t:. a.. ;. �� \�,,7, PARK �y0e O 0 e ['
:mill
�� s'\. 'ar' `4''r'4.3t',•; ••+,^ tia[ry�7. t •• ' & •. n In
`I � .y4\ t;..Y '??jj',,,�,..!!}%S> f,:y� ,r,•(''tJryCc J-+jj " v ,vi , lAa .r.�
, ~ ;'�:"v''N..APO W: 1"4..E!'"hs:,\� n '1` �:_ ' �ia�
,�.:; ,�:J..f� � 9r. �i`/e''-r:2S'rt'•y'^' •p:fYJ Y, ;.Y;,::, '�� '•,f''. 1S•p.'.�({t�' "L�..]umrnoM •Owf ii
' .,4•,,,,,`.4 \ :....„s. ^'`„R,,n5 .'1 E ,7, > :L- j ��`"•,. .,. ..M1,t ih- v.I..y {` 44/,^ oe, I/'�•• w J `. r.
�4 "J"Y l,'J, [..Y•..�I t 1 ti i' �' '7 \
ji,y(L,,,`:a', t,, r � it `. t' TTpp.„s..k'3y�.. n.. ;•.•` ,ty yam.
'.(�„Sif'.�:*.- ''.��t- ,,�4�rti�� {'i�ryi�M7o,�?���l`?i�"�Ysb•�:Y• n `,:'rJ� �' .:.�{I •°3�4'_��..l,T.t{` l�� .,Ys--' • �� ;O�a� ROM
�/l�
J } ° .x '�a .1 t Y;* T. lvL3;i ..n 'z•63,U1. -,•i i % [,ter 'i i
..r,_;:1#'.�a•:�'r\v��.'�,: ss�l�,`t*ix r:a.K,r,;; z,.. xogl � � >r.: ;,,x, i„I. , ,�•,��.`...'• �v t- '���,k`� � c+ $i
.Y''';Y.. E` ;k'*u•�1 ;"y1Fj�, �'..:°t �5 •I4�. n .',ryt'r -,^'•-r,Y't>�.°.. u:�.r.. +��yqw +. t�%. ��� ' s ��:
!:� „�" ,,.�,ir..l,tib`?r� k6Y �°! t. 7;:i `_ .I. (.s°..�,'4g�F,,..;,.,+`q,.,. ,+',:G.c. .r a..r ,a i S i� Q��r milli-�
-; 4}” �'e ..a.':?.. y.;0. t . i, a
�p� s , t•:iu: 5. WJ.4'si. 's-s, Y....f„ ..•'t,o.•: `'7•?.' ;k4..'',,.,'r ”. r • ''v ',It_ �, EN
• • P': `.' .r-' '' 1'�" i,Yl;' .'+ri!:,e t "..>1'.1.pY«-.:: -:3: �7�j F ,, lris.+�:,�e 1.0'..
''te:'S'�\\ r,.f,1'w rF'n . , .}�tj;.,w ..,�R �',4� r+tR#" F. • 80�•, ,•N y';;w.(,�4A :it,. .'.:,1"..,.. '"'" :l..a,. ;, '', 4•m vs '' t 2-v..010 f' �x
(( ,t. y 4s l� „.„...,,.,,,:,,,,,,,,,.::,'..„,..i.:‘:,,,,,,,,:•, i' '
•
«,,,i,:t't;S`• •i :},y..^✓,,,,goitil , �`. . i" .�, x'��Z,:;,d.._Y'�;,NZ. .lCl►µ•'ii * .'�%�� M {! S
, . : „"t.t..r'S„�,!'34r� {'�:•?f:r•.'t 11', �'.,. !„J:,`t'P``,Fis'r3it r�� :t.::,9�,. .t,�.;.F:��. : ay„i� .:?i•- Yisl Y/' t. �� v
. ....., r• „^s;K.;..;f-` 11..%..''•'.''0 y:l,�`C,•'.y, n ::i. .,,f`,�i',:yt'i?,,"z'=o nt. «°+J„'h. i ., '. "., ,':+�;t' i!,;d�','aurt:i ;js el,e'sli l �'""°`� "." , ,-1, !•,,, ,,;';';..e,.".•t-=`- %,-4,--' •::,C✓ •'u.• � . 'eta• ,'A. ' CT.M 11 '7 • f, : nk' ' • 'r' �' sav,?c •' �t "{•"'�- • ,G;ry., ^• 'a-. ."^'t r y;.A:�:t! r '•..;,"�„u..,• q n'v �.` 1`.ACi • .1'Y,r,w np _" eo "
_ ....:._. -- o, ,PQ',is,s;.t`,.� :•t::' `:'!`•^.'�• •=::,..:..i'�(J:O.. ,11 ''I ".~s:�,"'�ir•Ir.;;'t!' /�,�}i- �a e.4,..• .„F \y Y,• -..may :-.t-.,_.�,.,.._: ..•'� .. ..w.. ''J,;' ' v •. • s .
\0un0r e ` j:3
J .H, QO - a.. .� i Ma.,, ` `I:t y. ` -
..�-�_. san I '.:••:1 .�P� �,`' .. �: ,t..;-'..-q�51ri. si;:. F�e, �! y 'gip
�
��,.,.. •r:: q FIONA,LI, illgrim:i
. /. .
r_________:_------- - ,
3,t 'j'
/
�° ' - , ~- r \ -
EXISTING C
• VI40041.0.40..NC r '•CHANHASSEN ES- ! -
LAES �� ---l—.. -;'i`
/ .7 ill BUSINESS ..
•
I I G IF
•
1 . ;�Z •, ,�/, , _-'-' , north Q
/ - N 4,�
! Nov., 1988 ,7-8811/8813
11111 1111111 NM ME MEM ME M I= MEM MOM = 111111 ME 1111111 NM IIIIIII
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
ROSEMOUNT INC.
FIE II =-'
12001 Technology Drive DEC 1988
Eden Prairie, MN 55344 U.S.A.
(612) 941-5560
' XX:(612) 828.308810024 ENGINEERING DEPT.
December 9, 1988 Rosemount®
Mr. Gary G. Warren P.E.
City Engineer/Public Works Director
' Chanhassen, MN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Dear Gary:
Thank you for taking time to discuss our concerns regarding
access from Market Boulevard to Rosemount's main Visitor/
Employee entrance located on the east side of the new
facility. As you recall, earlier planning depicted access
1 directly off Lake Drive between the two wetlands. This
approach was discouraged because of the impact upon wildlife
in the wetland area and resulted in a requirement to access
from Market Boulevard on the east. A letter indicating our
' preference was was sent to Mr. Don Ashworth on October 17,
1988 (copy attached) .
It is our understanding that the T.H. 101 Realignment Lake
Drive Feasibility study does not include the extension of
Market Boulevard past Lake Drive. It is also our
understanding that as an alternative solution, a temporary
road following the property line is proposed to provide
access to our main entrance.
As I indicated, Rosemount has grave concerns regarding a
temporary access road to the main entrance of a multi-million
dollar facility which is to be used by not only our domestic
and international customers/visitors along with approximately
fifty percent of our employees. There are other consider-
ations that impact Rosemount's investment. They are:
' 1. Rosemount would not be able to complete the required
landscaping and identification signage for the facility
entrance, thus creating an access inconsistent with a
large investment and corporate image.
2 . There is no specific time set that indicated how long
' the temporary road would be used.
3 . Future disruption would be detrimental to our operation.
1
I
1
1
1 Mr. Gary G. Warren P.E.
December 9, 1988
1 Page 2
1 If for some reason the four lanes of Market Boulevard cannot
be extended to provide Rosemount with a first class entrance
' to a first class facility within the same time frame as Lake
Drive, we then ask that as a minimum, the city construct two
finished lanes of Market Boulevard to Rosemount's east access
point. Attached is a drawing that depicts a two lane
extension of Market Boulevard to Rosemount's access point.
For our facility planning purposes we would appreciate early
consideration of this matter.
Should you require additional information or have any
1 questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. .
Very truly yours,
1 ROSEMOUNT INC.
4 : 7i 4 -
rnest W. Echols
Construction Manager - Rosemount Inc.
1 ny
cc: Jeff Schmitt (Al)
Jack Jensen (W5)
2 Enclosures:
Letter to City Manger
Drawing for access
1
i
1
1
1
ROSEMOUNT INC.
12001 Technology Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344 U.S.A.
(612) 941-5560
TWX: 4310012 or 4310024
FAX: (612) 828-3088
October 17, 1988 Rosemount
1
Don Ashworth
' City Manager
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Rosemount's Preference to Alternates of Highway 101
Dear Don:
We have evaluated alternatives 2 and 2A depicting the
relocation of Highway 101, and our preference would be
',alternative 2," provided Market Blvd. is extended to Lake
Drive East. In ,either case, it is essential to Rosemount's
operations that we have an access road serving the eastern-
most part of our site (see attached drawing) . Currently
plans are being submitted showing this road running between
the two wetland areas.
' If alternative 2 is not acceptable, then we would need a
right-of-way to the southwest of the wetlands and off an
extension of Market Blvd. or Highway 101.
Should you have any questions or require additional
information, do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for
your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
1
Ernest W. Echols
Construction Manager
ny
Attachment: Drawing of entry roads
cc: Jeff Schmitt - Rosemount
Mike Cuskelly - Rosemount
r
F
•
IlL______ _______
a
I ''.%41\ --,........- ■,
W
SITE SIGN .1...'11.41%\\ •
s d CC< -,.;.
I WETLAND \ •
(TO BE PRESERVED) �O �►
i
1 / POND NIiii i ,_
I OtsTiON A ENTRY ROAD
I • I\ -
TO BE OMITTED iF z:
---------Z •
I OPTION B IS POSSIBLE----------------5. \L \•
I_ JLOADING [ %OF rION B
" 0
viR
. �
DOCK `� 303 CARS 0 I I _
I ' O ♦
Q
SITE
.. SIGN
1 i v
I ,
4 g 1 _;--"IBUILDING •
0
(,k ) 1 ! s.
I .
\.__, L
1604aY ',la 5
1 a
1
1 z-
-Ake T
1 N ;, ,, Fs—.
ei P•1 I "trop" - - aF GttY A-A2-661'
2.
1
I \ ' ® '
1' -v r I 1
1\ 11\, 1
I
\ \\ \
\ P p g
I ' Roi,EM00.4"
E1.4-n2P+n1t,E PXiVa
_. \ \
\ \\
1
\ \ FifU rE
I > \,\ F4 I,w
I H-e----------O i
i fr7O — .CA/iw/TJ.s7,o..� 6',✓rlr.vu�E a-,—
I
--- -:)tVrj.)) z
Eas EM WI'
Rosem
GI I P err
I CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ; Nom
PROPOSED BLVD. EXTENSION TO ° 4° 100 zoo ED
I ROSEMOUNT ENTRANCE DRIVE rn-r--7
Iz • z • ee• '
I .
A
I 7-14 1 1
1
I '
... , 111 eix/Pci4 _, Amok-
- .__C-„, , 77 - 35/I 402
II ktiWA-1-1-Va_ • ...,jimei j)
eitTAI e. e.A, r/v-• c4 .
P3 5-VSIS-5--
-I 1 h&L I/6 X I I)IL4 1 Ce c e v e-c t.e 4 g r c a r a 4,c-----4- 44 fi, _
., ., __ J Lail De 3 6,,cie__ gib a_zo,..4.1daT&„ eiA.A....... di'Ii--4 iqs--
izc .c /(
:: .,- (4 4; 12 De._ 20,44-
('- -41—bleirde-14---74:2Z AL 9CA DI: (e- c 6 c) 2-‘ ,1--
4 4/0/ ?zo/ e,ver-, 17,Z 93 ,/ _77//
I129-a,,, PAtp_a593 'I :Spc" Gtre.,4, rar- L-
I o e()LA-4..t e e 410-3 ,Z2 A..-IA ry 7,. esi....-- 73 -5,77/
_ ___ —
1111 f --u•-•"--“-,,,.1.-AiNk-ri i r 7 1-7,1' (20tzta___Liff_ 4,i„D rit-1-02__ 6? 3 it —05-5-0
i -
I-- 7 .?.val.-14.__Ccil.--.7-4". __.16:5 7_i.s7a... t.t7 -__c/Pc L z- c;49.Fe4___
- .,_:, /:--Y — ._,
I 41'0
„ ::.-'it-T-57 .:;' :/ :;14.3_-;r_4_ ___‘..5 ,- ' - cz_3 4 -_,,,,,
,,,,, -4,,,,.,,,k2._. z,e;/0 i.?.1 -4 G
,,- _, ,.„,,, ,„e_.2.4.,,, tizii
ax, e,,,„,,,,,, _?oo ? c ,974„,c
,
•,,,,',,,:„..:,-
.... .,
/II de
, ,,,,,
,.. _ , „i.,....4.., 7,2_, „ „,._ ,,,,, eltev.L.,... 3 v.1,79if
92 -6-.ac
,, ,# ---r
I . 10__C_, _ ki I
n 4
91,0-444- i.2./.2.240--- -27c;-n . (P'e-t-s 6 e-a ____
I , i
_ _
---,. ?_ct5t7___Scs_lt,4mill.tu.A114, ci. -hktco
CA•LeA Aid,‘4,1_14eir, O2 .-!3Q
I (01A4 vo, .iii,,,, 7z.--* /ZA)-rac - i1
(3_,....,,,,,...-..., / 4 'f i' I 0.. ee‘migam-4s4..) 77 ---E*6'2--
1-------- ---- - --- --- .
EASEMENT AND ROADWAY AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this 30th day of June , 1975 , by and between LAKE SUSAN HILLS,
a partnership (LSH) and MINNESOTA SOUTH DISTRICT OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH - MISSOURI
SYNOD, religious corporations of the State of Minnesota ("the Churc 0 .
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1 . Contemporaneously herewith Church has by quitclaim deedi' onveyed to LS11 land
in Carver County described as follows :
That part of Government Lot 1 , and Southwest 1/4 yipporthemsst}' {/4 of Section 14,
Township 116, Range 23 , lying South of the South 1°in'e of thei'Chicago, Milwaukee ,
' St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Co. ; that part of Government Lot 2, Section 14,
Township 116, Range 23, lying Northeast of the following described line:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 2; thence running East 13°25 ' South to
' the East line of said Lot 2; and that part of Government Lot 1 , Section 13,
Townsnip 116, Range 23 lying Southerly of State Highway No. 5; except that part of
Government Lot 1 , Section 14 , Township 116 , Range 23, and that part of Government
Lot 1 and that part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 , Section 13 ,
' Township 116, Range 23 , described as follows :
beginning at toe point of intersection of the East line of Section 14, Township
116, Range 23 and the South right-of-way line of State Highway No . 5 , as now
traveled and located ; thence at an angle of South 2°57 ' 46" East , along the east
line of said Section 14, Township 116 , Range 23 , a distance of 46 .29 feet; thence
South 89°40 ' 24" West a distance of 330 feet ; thence South 2°57 '46" East a distance
of 330 feet; thence North 89°40' 24" East a distance of 886 .08 feet; thence North
13°44 ' 54" East a distance of 150 feet to a point of intersection with the
Southerly right-of-way line of State Highway No . 5 , as now traveled and located ;
' thence Northwesterly along said southerly right-of-way line as now traveled and
located to the point of beginning, and there terminating.
2. Church which remains the fee owner of
Beginning at the point of intersection of the East line of Section 14 , Township
116 , Range 23 and the South right-of-way line of State Highway No. 5 , as now
traveled and located ; thence at an angle of South 2°57' 46" East, along the east
line of said •Section 14, Township 116 , Range 23 , a distance of 46.29 feet ; thence
South 89°40' 24" West a distance of 330 feet ; thence South 2°57'46" East a distance
' of 330 feet ; thence North 39°40 ' 24" East a distance of 886 .08 _feet ; thence North
13°44' 54" East a distance of 150 feet to a point 'pf�"intersect'ion with the
Southerly right-of-way line of State Highway No. 5 , as now traveled and located ;
' thence Northwesterly along said southerly right-of-way line as now traveled and
located to the point' of beginning , and there terminating.
•
Ia , .
desires -
to reserve a non-exclusive easement for the use and benefit of its retained
property as follows :
' A 60 foot wide easement for access and road purposes over , under and across part
of Government Lot 1 , Section 13, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota,
the centerline of which. is described as follows :
Commencing at the point of intersection of the East line of Section 14, Township
116 , Range 23 and the south right-of-way line of State Highway No. 5, as now
' traveled and located: thence S. 2°57' 46" E. along the east line of said Section
14 , a distance of 46.29 feet ; thence S 89°40' 24" W, a distance of 330 feet ; thence
S 2°57' 46" E, a distance of 330 feet; thence N 89°40' 24" E. a distance of 686.02
feet ; thence S 0° 19 ' 36" E, a distance of 30.00 feet to the oint of beginning of
the centerline to be described ; thence N 89°40' 24" E, a distance of 281 .37 feet ;
thence S 79°30 ' 15" E, a distance of 485.00 feet ; thence N 75°53 '44" E, a distance
' of 191 . 72 feet; thence N 15° 19' 18" E, a distance of 145 .00 feet to the
intersection of the east line of said Government Lot 1 , Section 13 with southerly
right-of-way Line of State Highway No . 5, as now traveled and located, and there
terminating. The side lines of said easement are to be lengthened or shortened to
' provide a 60-foot wide easement over its entire length within and across
Government Lot 1 , Section 13, Township 116, Range 23.
' 3. LSH and Church recognize that the contemplated and future development of
LSH' s property requires the" maintenance of a roadway on this Easement or a relocated
Easement until such time as it or some roadway of substantially similar width and
location is dedicated and accepted as a public street , if that should ever occur .
PLOW, THEREFORE, LSH and Church agree as follows :
' L . Church may maintain a roadway over so much of the Easement as it desires at
its own cost.
' 2. Church agrees to indemnify and hold LSH harmless for any loss or damage , .
including mechanic 's and materialmen ' s liens which may arise out of or in the course of
its maintenance of a roadway upon the Easement .
' 3. If, during the course of development of its property, LSH, at its expense ,
can obtain the approval of governmental authorities to either relocate the Easement or
to construct and dedicate a public roadway in lieu thereof, said relocated Easement or
public roadway to provide access to CSAH No. 51in as reasonably direct a manner and of
substantially the same width and surfacing as the Easement , then Church shall execute a
release or modification of Easement , whichever is appropriate , upon completion of the
relocated Easement or public roadway and upon LSH' s written request. LSH agrees to
consult with Church with regard to the location and nature of the relocated Easement or
public roadway in an effort to arrive at access for Church which is mutually acceptable
to LSH and Church. However , it is understood that LSH and governmental authorities
' shall make the final decision with regard to exact location of the relocated Easement
or public roadway. LSH shall 'prepare , at its expense , the necessary release or
modification of Easement.
' *delete and/or change wording to read:
.. .in a reasonably direct manner, LSH, at its expense, will construct a new roadway
of substantially the same width and surfacing as the existing Easement at the time
of relocation. The Church shall then execute a release...
•
I
1 .
4. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be deemed to be covenants
II running with the title to the properties owned by the respective parties, as described
in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Statement of Facts .
II 5. The terms LSII and Church as herein used shall be deemed to include not only
the parties hereto but also their respective successors or assigns .
6. This Easement and Roadway Agreement is executed in modification of and in
I substitution for paragraph 2 of that certain Memorandum of Agreement executed on
February 25 , 1966 , by and between Frontier Development Corporation, a Minnesota
corporation and Minnesota South District of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod , a
II religious corporation under the Laws of the State of Minnesota, said memorandum of
agreement being the one referred to in a warranty deed between the same parties, dated
the same date and recorded on March 3, 1966 , with the Carver County Register of Deeds
in book 87 of Deeds, page 439 .
IIIN WITNESS WHEREOF, Church and LSH have caused these presents to be executed by
their officers and partners hereinafter designated , this j2'' day of pi ,-7 , 1977.
II
LAKE SU A HILLS, a partnership
BY: �'' z- Z t < < C' . 2/ xL _ -
• A Partner
IIby: \ - %;:.✓"---
A 'Partner
IIMINNESOTA SOUTH DISTRICT OF THE
LUTHERAN CHURCH - MISSOURI SYNOD
1 0
By: , f ' 6-1 - ‘'.414_..e_
Its : President
\ /
BY: :\AIL. _ III, _
I . Treasurer•II
1 _
I
The Lutheran Church of the Living Christ , a Minnesota religious corporation, and
I Char-Lynn Foundation, a Minnesota non-profit corporation, consent to and join in this
Easement and Roadway Agreement .
ITHE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE LIVING
CHRIST
I By: ' //4- --A----
Its : -1---}eS:el -vCt-
I
13y: �� —=}— _ _ -
1 Its : S 'cr-e t y-r it
CHAR-LYNN FOUNDATION
I
• .
iI t s : re- �-P c .e, Cl..G .YT'
I STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss .
COUNTY OF
' e foregoing, ns rument was acknow�dg ed bee me 1. s/ 2•• day of i7 , 1977 ,
I by .'J. / and --_— 0" _, of LAKE SUSAN
HILLS , a partnership on behalf of the partnership.
--- Ir-2
Notary s- • .
I '=1 ARLYNE F. PORTER
1J . NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA
5TA'lE OF MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY
My Commaalon Eaphwa May 7. 11)81
II ss .
CUUiJ TY UN �a-w.o,cy
The foregoing instrument was acknowled d before me this.:O ay of g , 1977 , by
fe�eJ, President and _ _ _ / • _, Treasurer of
II F. NNESUTA SOUTfI DISTRICT OF THE LUTHERAN C IURCH -t1ISSO I SYNOD , a religious
corporation of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation.
I XA/+LAGaaa�✓ na
• �/
4AJaMI4A 4.T ♦rnX — 1
,..:r: LUCILLE M. ROBERT - -
. NOTARY PUBLIC.MINNESOTA Not y Public
RAMSEY COUNTY y
i °-' My Commission Expires Dec. 17. 1981
'Ar JVV7Jv^✓o.Avv..Y..... .vv vvvvvs,‘VX
I
I
1 ,
I
I STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF •
/[\Jr .(J,,..�- r/— / /
^Tne foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this � day of hqay 1977 ,
by " 1 Q 1- c;�ct.. ever%c�e .. t and , /a!�� IGI/clefs ,
foc �_ f / _ _ of LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE LIVING CHRIST, a religious
I corporation/of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation.
-w
'' THOMAS J. O'CONNOR
CARVER COUNTY -1���I�I NOTARY FU LIC-MINNESOTA ,
' 1933 otary Public
LycOMMoNZJUSNE 7,
I STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss .
COUNTY OF
I sT
The foregoing'' instrument was acknowledh- d before me this y day of�u74 X1977 ,
by ,1EYE'--PLy C� Sc o//- , � ' /�E .f/ 0"6.✓ % of CHAR-LYNN FOUNDATION, a
Inon-profit corporation , on behalf of the corporation .
' EDWARD N. FRANK Notary Public
'j_C NOTAP.f PUBLIC—hllN;1'.SOTA
i
HENNEPIN COUNTY
IMY COMMI[•ION[XPIRE3 MAY 5,1984
I
•
I
I v.
_ ,
I
I
I '